Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RWVBWL]

Once all forensic evidence is gathered, or at least when they think they have enough.

The minimum time for luminol application is a couple of days or more...since bleach disappears in that time, being non-pervasive.

As for the evidence collection...there's a queue for testing...which dictates what and how much evidence is collected and when.

Good evening Mr. Fulcanelli,
Your expertise in investigational knowledge continues to amaze me daily. How do you know all of this? From what I have read, and please correct me if I am wrong, but it's been written that you are a site admin at PMF. But I wonder where you learned all of this, are you a former detective or someone who has investigative experience also, or maybe someone who might love crime novels?
I am just wondering as I read here on JREF in Los Angeles. Have a good one.
RWVBWL

 

[christianahannah]

Once all forensic evidence is gathered, or at least when they think they have enough.

The minimum time for luminol application is a couple of days or more...since bleach disappears in that time, being non-pervasive.

As for the evidence collection...there's a queue for testing...which dictates what and how much evidence is collected and when.

So in your opinion there is no difference in the results whether tested early or late as long as enough time had passed for bleach to disappear?

 

[LondonJohn]

Personally, I can not imagine a naive 20 year old gal, who had just been told that her boyfriend was not backing up her alibi anymore, calling the police LIARS! So what the heck do you do if the police do not believe your story, calling you a liar time and time again?
What a nightmare that interrogation must have been for Miss Knox.
Too bad the police did not record it.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

Too right, in my opinion.

I think many people underestimate the power of well-established and well-tested police techniques to elicit information out of suspects. The problem is, these techniques are sometimes SO powerful that they elicit what could be termed "false positives".

For a very long time, the very existence of such "false positives" was either concealed or flat-out denied within law enforcement circles. However, when enough such cases had been definitively discovered, the law enforcement position had no option but to change. But only to something along the lines of "Sometimes mistakes (false confessions/accusations) happen, but exceptionally rarely and in very certain circumstances that we've already identified and eliminated. Juries should still draw very strong and certain inferences from any and all confessions/accusations obtained under interview".

Unfortunately, this "modified" position is itself being called more and more into question. Many recent - and scientifically controlled - studies show how amazingly (in the literal sense) easy it is to obtain false confessions and/or accusations when a person is subjected to a sophisticated combination of verbal abuse, coercion, suggestion, perception of personal peril, "Hobson's choice" games, "prisoner's dilemma" games and reward.

I would therefore make this argument (of my personal opinion): Yes, the police ARE generally very good at getting useful information out of suspects, if those suspects are indeed culpable of the crime in question. And sometimes they get whole confessions using these sorts of techniques. But not always. And evidence increasingly supports the view that a significant number of confessions obtained using this battery of techniques subsequently turn out to be false.

And so I'd argue this important point, which involves revisiting Bayesian conditional probability theory: IF you (i.e. the police) have a confession/accusation in your hand, AND the confession was obtained not spontaneously but only after employing these sorts of techniques, THEN the probability that the suspect has made an accurate confession/accusation (given the existence of confession and the techniques employed) is a LOT lower than 100%. Exactly how low, I can't currently say. I would be happy to do some digging around to try to put a number to it - that might take a little time though. However, I'm confident that the kernel of my argument, and the general principles, are accurate.

I'd also add that I believe (can probably find supporting evidence) that when people "break" and confess under these conditions, they generally confess to the whole, unvarnished truth - in a mixture of cathartic relief and a hope that "telling the truth" will help them in future judicial rulings. AK demonstrably didn't do this - and it's hard to imagine how she'd have thought she was either helping herself or healing herself through what she said at around 1.45am on 6th November...

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So in your opinion there is no difference in the results whether tested early or late as long as enough time had passed for bleach to disappear?

Household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How do you know if the fourth and fifth videos were shot before luminol testing was done? Neither of the clips has a time or date stamp or volume.

We know this because in the same video the clasp is collected. The clasp was collected before the luminol testing was done.

This appears to be one thing that Fulcanelli is correct about. The luminol testing is generally done after evidence collection has been completed.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have the Mignini Motivations on a word doc and google translated to English. If anyone wants a copy send me a pm (or and email, LOL)

 

[LondonJohn]

Edited to Zero because I realised I was barking up the wrong tree about something - and it seems impossible to delete something once it's out there! Sorry!

 

[LondonJohn]

I just keep reading and reading on here, but there is something I'm a bit curious about:

It's actually quite easy to decode which posters are Amanda supporters and which clearly are not.

What would be interesting to know though, is how many feel she is guilty or innocent just based of the fact that they don't believe that she was actually in the room when the murder took place, but was somewhat involved to some degree.

I almost felt compelled to reply with "No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock!" to your second paragraph above

But, in seriousness, I would like to add that it's a bit more complicated that either being an "Amanda supporter" or whatever the opposite might be called ("Amanda hater"?). As I've pointed out before, it's very possible (and arguably more nuanced) to take a position based on interpretation of legal processes and interpretation of evidence, without AK's culpability or lack of involvement (explicitly as opposed to legal "guilt" or "non-guilt") ever becoming a factor. This is where I place myself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, I am rushed today so I am only posting a few videos. I will organize a section for this topic on the Injustice site soon. These are short clips. You can download them and watch them in a bigger format. I was careful not to show anything disrespectful in the clips. These are short clips but it doesn't take long to show someone walking from one room to the next. Most clips involve the hall. We all know how important this area was.

The investigators did not change shoe covers as they walked around the cottage.

The first three videos show a cameraman walking around the cottage.

The fourth video show investigators walking from the hall into Meredith's room. Notice how many people were in Meredith's room. Also notice that the doors from Meredith's wardrobe are leaning up in front of the bathroom in the hall.

The last video shows how many people are walking around in the hall. The view is from Meredith's room. They actually take a mop out of the closet and wrap it in what appears to be wrapping paper from that same closet. I am not exactly sure why.

After watching the fourth and fifth videos you will see that the hall was heavily contaminated long before any luminol testing was ever done.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/test.html

Verrrrry interesting. I wonder why others claimed with seeming certainty that inter-room contamination by the forensics team didn't occur...?

And, to expand on your point, WHY THE HECK were there so many forensics people crammed into the murder room / hallway? This absolutely cannot be "best practice", surely. Would the Perugia police normally send this many people to forensically analyse such a small and cramped crime scene? Or could this possibly have been a case of every available forensics officer inserting themselves into the situation - on account of this being a major, high-profile murder?

 

[Mary_H]

I'd also add that I believe (can probably find supporting evidence) that when people "break" and confess under these conditions, they generally confess to the whole, unvarnished truth - in a mixture of cathartic relief and a hope that "telling the truth" will help them in future judicial rulings. AK demonstrably didn't do this - and it's hard to imagine how she'd have thought she was either helping herself or healing herself through what she said at around 1.45am on 6th November...

I have commented about this many times. If Amanda were knowledgeable enough about DNA to know how to clean all of her own evidence from the crime scene but leave Rudy's intact, then there would be absolutely no point in accusing Patrick. She would have known the investigators would eventually analyze the evidence and that it would match Rudy, not Patrick.

 

[Mary_H]

Or could this possibly have been a case of every available forensics officer inserting themselves into the situation - on account of this being a major, high-profile murder?

Yes.

 

[LondonJohn]

And right there you have it, in the 'early reports'. Where did all these people go? Did they fall off the planet? How is it we're now reduced to two (Seliber doesn't talk anymore)? So, what's happened...have these people vanished? Have they changed their minds about Amanda? Has someone shut them up? How many who knew her didn't get the chance to speak in the first place? What's going on here?

Firstly, I believe to a certain extent (as I currently read the situation) that AK's family's publicist did try to manipulate access to AK's family, based on whether they'd been in contact with any of a specific list of Seattle people. THis seems to me to be pretty bad PR, but doesn't (to me) necessarily signify any nefarious suppression of fair comment about Amanda.

Why do I say this? Well, I imagine if I had been accused of a brutal murder, with sexual elements, and I was sitting in a police cell half way round the world from my home city. I then imagine that the local, national, and even international media were descending on my home city to try to get "background" on me. I then imagine that many (or most) of the media - particularly at that point - would be broadly of the view that "there's no smoke without fire" - or even worse.

Now, I have - I would say - two or maybe three friends who know me very well, and who've known me for many years. I also have a number of work colleagues (substitute for UW co-students in the AK case), who know me to a certain level, but not in depth. And of course I know a large number of lesser friends and acquaintances from all facets of my life.

I imagine that if my parents had started to see people whom they didn't know of - and whom they thought had only a loose connection to me - giving interviews about me - GOOD OR BAD - they'd feel that there was a very real risk of an incorrect and inaccurate picture of me being compiled across the entire media. I imagine that they would also feel that such a picture would likely become the "received" image of me very quickly.

So I imagine that they would be very keen indeed for only those people who could count as close and long-standing friends to be the sole (or at least predominant) sources of information about my character. I also imagine that if they were fair-minded parents, they'd have allowed my two or three closest friends to give their true and genuine views on my character to the media - even if some of those views were "negative".

I'd also add, in passing, that I would imagine - under the same scenario - that my parents would find it highly distressing to give direct interviews to reporters who believed in my guilt - and who therefore were likely to ask questions from a point of view of supposition of guilt. I imagine that I wouldn't therefore find it strange if my parents only agreed interviews with media outlets that were either neutral or supportive. After all, my parents wouldn't have been accused of any crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your expertise in investigational knowledge continues to amaze me daily. How do you know all of this?

I don't know, I suppose studying a subject for two and a half years or more results in one being informed on it...that's my guess.

But I wonder where you learned all of this, are you a former detective or someone who has investigative experience also, or maybe someone who might love crime novels?
I am just wondering as I read here on JREF in Los Angeles. Have a good one.

Yes, by profession I'm a detective, of sorts. As for crime novels, I can honestly say I've never read one in my life. Have a good one too...uh, catch a good wave

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have the Mignini Motivations on a word doc and google translated to English. If anyone wants a copy send me a pm (or and email, LOL)

You can keep the Google translation, but I'd welcome the .doc format (in original Italian).

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem for those that think Amanda is innocent is that they don't have a unified, coherent point. If Amanda is innocent of this murder than why was she found guilty in a court of law?

This was posted quite a while ago - but I couldn't let this jewel go without pointing it out in bold. Try substituting any of the names from the list below in place of the word "Amanda" in the quote above....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

(Note that my point stands REGARDLESS of whether there actually HAS been a miscarriage in AK's instance....)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This was posted quite a while ago - but I couldn't let this jewel go without pointing it out in bold. Try substituting any of the names from the list below in place of the word "Amanda" in the quote above....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

(Note that my point stands REGARDLESS of whether there actually HAS been a miscarriage in AK's instance....)

You missed the larger point of the post: i.e. if there was a miscarriage of justice, which of the many reasons thrown out was actually the cause - and why are so many reasons (some contradictory) thrown out?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I have commented about this many times. If Amanda were knowledgeable enough about DNA to know how to clean all of her own evidence from the crime scene but leave Rudy's intact, then there would be absolutely no point in accusing Patrick. She would have known the investigators would eventually analyze the evidence and that it would match Rudy, not Patrick.

Nobody stated she cleaned to con the forensics, only that she cleaned to remove visible traces of herself...so the police would be off chasing some non-existent burglar.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Household cleaners that contain bleach degrade at a much slower rate than pure hypochlorate (chlorine bleach). So they likely would be detectable for months.

None of the household cleaners contained bleach...as was established in the trial. To keep asserting it is to be dishonest (that means lie).

 

[Mary_H]

Firstly, I believe to a certain extent (as I currently read the situation) that AK's family's publicist did try to manipulate access to AK's family, based on whether they'd been in contact with any of a specific list of Seattle people. THis seems to me to be pretty bad PR, but doesn't (to me) necessarily signify any nefarious suppression of fair comment about Amanda.

Why do I say this? Well, I imagine if I had been accused of a brutal murder, with sexual elements, and I was sitting in a police cell half way round the world from my home city. I then imagine that the local, national, and even international media were descending on my home city to try to get "background" on me. I then imagine that many (or most) of the media - particularly at that point - would be broadly of the view that "there's no smoke without fire" - or even worse.

Now, I have - I would say - two or maybe three friends who know me very well, and who've known me for many years. I also have a number of work colleagues (substitute for UW co-students in the AK case), who know me to a certain level, but not in depth. And of course I know a large number of lesser friends and acquaintances from all facets of my life.

I imagine that if my parents had started to see people whom they didn't know of - and whom they thought had only a loose connection to me - giving interviews about me - GOOD OR BAD - they'd feel that there was a very real risk of an incorrect and inaccurate picture of me being compiled across the entire media. I imagine that they would also feel that such a picture would likely become the "received" image of me very quickly.

So I imagine that they would be very keen indeed for only those people who could count as close and long-standing friends to be the sole (or at least predominant) sources of information about my character. I also imagine that if they were fair-minded parents, they'd have allowed my two or three closest friends to give their true and genuine views on my character to the media - even if some of those views were "negative".

I'd also add, in passing, that I would imagine - under the same scenario - that my parents would find it highly distressing to give direct interviews to reporters who believed in my guilt - and who therefore were likely to ask questions from a point of view of supposition of guilt. I imagine that I wouldn't therefore find it strange if my parents only agreed interviews with media outlets that were either neutral or supportive. After all, my parents wouldn't have been accused of any crime.

Considering what happened, it's amazing the press were able to find so few people willing to trash Amanda:

...[Amanda's friends] found themselves not only turning to the Internet for news on their friend and classmate. They themselves became part of the story thanks to a media hungry for details on a young, attractive U.S. student accused of a ghastly crime in a foreign country.

Knox, like many MySpace users, had designated dozens of people as "friends" on her Web page, meaning they were allowed to post comments and create links, among other things. As is typical, many of these friends barely knew Knox, and instead were more like Internet acquaintances.

No matter. In this sensational story, each "friend" can become a media target.

Dominick Balsoma, who went to Seattle Prep with Knox and remained friends when they both went on to the UW, was one of Knox's MySpace friends. He said he learned about the slaying via e-mail from a British reporter — who had found him through Knox's MySpace page. The reporter wanted to know more about Knox. Balsoma wonders how many others were contacted.

"When you have hundreds of 'friends,' it's hard to know who's been contacted and who hasn't," Balsoma said.

It wasn't just the media that went to Knox's site, however; the news frenzy has led many to log on. One friend was threatened by a stranger on MySpace. Hate mail has scattered throughout other people's pages on the site and a similar site, Facebook.com.

Paxton said she believes people have used MySpace to "misconstrue" her friend's character.

She and others describe Knox as smart, caring and a joy to be around. Knox did well in school, even while working two jobs and playing varsity soccer in high school at Seattle Prep. Yet some news reports focused only on things like the disturbing short stories Knox had written for college assignments and posted on her site. The international media have "taken words of hers and photos and given no context ... and that has hurt a lot," Paxton said....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004001231_italy08m.html

 

[Mary_H]

Nobody stated she cleaned to con the forensics, only that she cleaned to remove visible traces of herself...so the police would be off chasing some non-existent burglar.

That's not the point. If she was at the murder, she knew how much evidence was left there and that it eventually would be linked to Rudy. Accusing Patrick would serve no purpose other than to be charged later with false accusation.